Hemodynamics of Stent Implantation Procedures in Coronary Bifurcations: An In Vitro Study
Annals of Biomedical Engineering , Volume 45 - Issue 3 p. 542- 553
Stent implantation in coronary bifurcations presents unique challenges and currently there is no universally accepted stent deployment approach. Despite clinical and computational studies, the effect of each stent implantation method on the coronary artery hemodynamics is not well understood. In this study the hemodynamics of stented coronary bifurcations under pulsatile flow conditions were investigated experimentally. Three implantation methods, provisional side branch (PSB), culotte (CUL), and crush (CRU), were investigated using time-resolved particle image velocimetry to measure the velocity fields. Subsequently, hemodynamic parameters including wall shear stress, oscillatory shear index (OSI), and relative residence time (RRT) were calculated. The pressure field through the vessel was non-invasively quantified and pressure wave speeds were computed. The effects of each stented case were evaluated and compared against an un-stented case. CRU provided the lowest compliance mismatch, but demonstrated detrimental stent interactions. PSB, the clinically preferred method, and CUL maintained many normal flow conditions. However, PSB provided about a 300% increase in both OSI and RRT. CUL yielded a 10 and 85% increase in OSI and RRT, respectively. The results of this study support the concept that different bifurcation stenting techniques result in hemodynamic environments that deviate from that of un-stented bifurcations, to varying degrees.
|Coronary bifurcation, Crush, Culotte, Experimental fluid dynamics, Particle image velocimetry, Provisional side branch, Stenting technique|
|Annals of Biomedical Engineering|
|Organisation||Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam|
Brindise, M.C. (Melissa C.), Chiastra, C, Burzotta, F, Migliavacca, F, & Vlachos, P. (2017). Hemodynamics of Stent Implantation Procedures in Coronary Bifurcations: An In Vitro Study. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 45(3), 542–553. doi:10.1007/s10439-016-1699-y